Is "Eyes Wide Shut" a good movie? Was Stanley Kubrick a good director?

He had a certain style. I wouldn't call Eyes Wide Shut a bad movie.

 

Some more than others. I think Tarrantino proposed that for every bad movie that a director does, it erases 3 of their good ones. That would put the likes of Spielberg and Scorsese in the negative, imo. If Eyes Wide Shut is the worst that Kubrick did, I think he's pretty safe in the pantheon of greats.

I think its worth pointing out that all of Kubrick's films after 2001 have been met with wildly divergent opinions. I think it's a bit premature in discounting EWS as the work of someone who has lost his touch, when the very same critiques have been applied to classics such as 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, etc...

 

I've really come to appreciate this film, but my biggest memory was seeing it on the weekend it was released. Right in the midst of the orgy scene I got the back of my neck sprayed with (what I dear god hope was) some coca cola from someone sitting behind me.

 

I hear what you're saying, Steve. I have a deep appreciation of Kubrick and his films. I think he played with the visual artform in a very strange way. There's something... off... about his films, and EWS is a great example. I think it's an ok film that to me feels unfinished, but there is a certain feeling of "offness" to it that I love. Sort of a combination of lighting, his signature tracking shots, the strange performances he pulls from actors and the soundtrack. It all comes together into something "Kubrickian" that I can't really explain.

 

Kubrick was a terrific director but "Eyes Wide Shut" (or as my wide called it "Eyes Wide ****") is far from his best accomplishment. It has some moments but I always felt that for Kubrick, who would often tweak films after release, it is unfinished.

 

Nah, this is something Kubrick did deliberately. In life Kubrick was a pretty quiet, private man.

 

I don't know if you could say it was something he did deliberately. I think of him in the same way that I do David Lynch, in that they are directors that are able to tap into their subconscious (for lack of a better word) and get it up onto the screen. You can try but you'll never be able to fully break down what it is about their films that make them different to its physical components (i.e. lighting, camera angles, dialogue, etc.).

Take The Shining for example. Not a perfect film by any means, but something about it resonates in my guts and I get a fluttery feeling even thinking about it. Same with Full Metal Jacket. I mean that build up to the mental breakdown of Vincent D'Onofri's character is a typical sort of plot in many war movies, but jesus christ that scene with him (that if you have seen the movie you know what I'm talking about) just hits me on a lot of different levels (some of which I'm ok not knowing about!).

 

Why compare Eyes Wide Shut (made when Kubrick was nearing his death bed) to Patton? A quick glance at Schaffner's IMDB page shows that his final films were movies such as Lionheart and a movie called Welcome Home, both of which have been relegated to the annals of completely forgotten cinema. Were it not for Patton then Schaffner himself would arguably be a forgotten name. But at the very least, wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare Patton to movies like Strangelove or Paths of Glory or even Spartacus? Eyes Wide Shut wasn't old hollywood any more than Lionheart was, unless you're counting the fact that both directors were old.

 

Exactly. These are artists who were able to transcend the conventions of traditional storytelling and help turn the medium itself into a true art form. Kubrick (and even Lynch) isn't necessarily a storyteller in that his movies are as much about concepts as they are about acting and writing. 2001 is not so much landmark in a directing (as long as directing is to be approached as a storytelling medium) as much as it is a foray into the possibilities of cinema itself.

 

I bet every director wishes he could take 400 days to shoot a movie. Kubrick was Kubrick, so he could!

 

I really liked "Eyes Wide Shut." One of my favorite Kubrick movies. I absolutely love the dreamy, deliberate pacing and sense of alienation & taboo.

 

Kubrick's artistic muse was that of an iconoclast who found a way to work within the Hollywood system while simultaneously pushing the audience's emotional buttons of discomfort and the creative envelope of cinema in general...he was brilliant, neurotic and maddening, all at the same time, which made him unique among directors..."Eyes Wide Shut" lies somewhere in the middle of his creative output, not his best nor his worst, yet uniquely Kubrickian...

 

Quick follow up to my previous reply: I definitely revoke the idea that Schaffner would be "forgotten" were it not for Patton--he's certainly got a handful of classics under his belt (now that I checked again)! My point was simply that he didn't exactly go out on a high note, and arguably Kubrick didn't either. But I guess all I was driving at was the Eyes Wide Shut seems like a weird film to use when evaluating Kubrick as a director since it's one of his lesser films in many regards.

 

Haven't heard this in years, but I remember really enjoying it. Certainly a very very smart dude.

 

Over 15 years later, I cannot determine if I like it or I am just fascinated by it. It definitely puts me under a spell when I watch it; it is hypnotic.

I saw it in one of those big multiplex cinemas. The audience didn't get it - definitely not a popcorn flick.

I think Nicole Kidman is fantastic in it; one of my favourite performances from her. I missed her in the second half.

 

The entire film has an eerie feel to it. The New York night scenes were spooky. Very few films I have seen and think at the end, what a director! Instead of what a great movie!

 

I've grown to like it a great deal, but did find it baffling in places. There's a very good book which helps to explain it by Kubrick scholar, Michel Chion. It certainly increased my appreciation of the film.

 

My exact feelings.

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/

 

I liked this movie when I watched it at the theater, but others I was with hated it. I thought it was well cast, but cast in an odd way, as if the personal weaknesses of the actors was part and parcel of the performance. I read the book soon after. My sense is that Kubrick focused on one aspect of the story—showing a character with all the hallmarks of contemporary success bumping up against a power structure that was vast and much more capable than anything in the protagonist’s world view. There seems to be a surface disconnect in the casting that belies a deeper idea.

 

'Eyes Wide Shut' is all about one scene: when Nicole tells Tom she would have left him stone-cold for the Navy guy. Imagine if your Wife that you love & treasure told you something like that...then the nightmare of jealousy begins. Most movies actually contain the marital infidelity taking place within the context of the plot, but Kubrick puts it all in Tom's mind. Thus in the mind of the viewer watching the movie. Brilliant idea, IMHO...

 

I also think the very last line of dialogue spoken in the film is perfect.